Case law

Baker v. Matheson

607 P.2d 233 · Utah Supreme Court · Dec 28, 1979

establishes that a constitutional provision has been violated. … noncitizens. 7 The doctrine of fundamental rights was first established in Corfield v.

Williams v. Board of County Commissioners

125 N.M. 445 · New Mexico Court of Appeals · Apr 16, 1998

Qualified immunity protects officials whose conduct does not contravene “clearly established [federal] statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Harlow v. … a constitutional or statutory right, and (2) the right was clearly established at the time of the conduct.

Laura Toms and Ira Chaiffetz v. Bob Taft Reginald J. Wilkinson Anthony J. Brigano Lawrence Belskis Mark Clark

338 F.3d 519 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jul 31, 2003

The second part of the qualified immunity inquiry asks whether the constitutional right was clearly established such that reasonable officials would know that their conduct violated the right. … Although courts engaging in qualified immunity analyses often consider only case law when determining whether the right at issue was clearly established, the Supreme Court in Hope also considered a Department of Justice report

Garrett v. Stratman

254 F.3d 946 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Jun 20, 2001

of clearly established law.” … a violation of clearly established law.”

Feasel v. Willis

904 F. Supp. 582 · District Court, N.D. Texas · Mar 9, 1995

It is the Plaintiff who must overcome the claim to qualified immunity. The Defendant filed two briefs on the issue of qualified immunity. … Creighton, supra, the terminology “clearly established” has an important application to any claim of qualified immunity. Anderson v. Creighton, supra, cited with favor in Malley v.

Cottrell v. Caldwell

85 F.3d 1480 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jun 3, 1996

An example of such an issue is "whether the legal norms allegedly violated by the defendant were clearly established at the time of the challenged actions or, ... whether the law clearly proscribed the actions the defendant … whether the federal right allegedly infringed was clearly established."

Edward Sialoi v. City of San Diego

823 F.3d 1223 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · May 24, 2016

Whether the constitutional right was clearly established As with the three teenagers, the background circumstances on which the defendants rely to establish qualified immunity (the officers presence in a high-crime … Thus, Sandoval’s discussion of clearly established law applies equally here.

Jo Anne Allison v. Dept. of Corrections

94 F.3d 494 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Aug 30, 1996

See id. at 2156 (noting that a denial of qualified immunity is immediately appealable so long as it turns on an issue of law; namely, "the purely legal issue [of] what law was `clearly established'"). … The clearly established law of Simon is relevant to determining whether the defendants acted reasonably at the time of Allison's discharge (the issue in this limited qualified immunity appeal), but will control the merits

Papin v. Univ. of Miss. Med. Ctr.

347 F. Supp. 3d 274 · District Court, S.D. Mississippi · Sep 28, 2018

Government officials invoke qualified immunity to shield themselves "from civil damages liability insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person … right was clearly established at the time of the defendant's alleged misconduct." 12 "For a right to be clearly established under the second step of the qualified immunity analysis, the contours of that right must be sufficiently

Randall v. City of Fairbanks

352 F. Supp. 2d 1028 · District Court, D. Alaska · Jan 11, 2005

Clearly Established Rights Although Randall has shown that there may have been a violation of a constitutional right, Williamson, nonetheless, is entitled to qualified immunity if that right was not clearly established at … Because the law governing deadly force in these circumstances was not clearly established at the time of the shooting, the Court HOLDS that Wilhamson is entitled to qualified immunity.

Auriemma v. Rice

895 F.2d 338 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Feb 6, 1990

We must now turn to the second step of the qualified immunity inquiry and determine whether the alleged constitutional violation was clearly established at the time of the alleged violation. … immunity inquiry of whether a constitutional right is clearly established.

Michael Wigginton, Jr. v. University of Mississipp

964 F.3d 329 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jul 1, 2020

The district court erred when it denied defendants’ motion for qualified immunity and concluded that Wigginton had a clearly-established property interest. … We regularly grant qualified immunity in substantive due process cases where the plaintiff fails to establish a clearly- established property interest. See, e.g., Wilkerson v. Univ. of N. Tex.

Celeste James, Barry James v. City of Douglas, Ga., Clyde Purvis, John Doe--Clifford Thomas

941 F.2d 1539 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Sep 18, 1991

Purvis and Thomas appeal the denial of qualified immunity, asserting that they did not violate a clearly established constitutional right. III. DISCUSSION A. … Qualified Immunity Purvis and Thomas appeal the district court’s denial of summary judgment based upon the doctrine of qualified immunity.

McCall v. Williams

59 F. Supp. 2d 556 · District Court, D. South Carolina · Aug 16, 1999

Plaintiff maintains that his right to be free from the application of handcuffs which were too tight was clearly established on the date of the incident. … Just as the Supreme Court found that the officials in Wilson had violated the plaintiffs Fourth Amendment rights, yet they were entitled to qualified immunity because the specific right had not been clearly established at

Suarez Cestero v. Pagan Rosa

198 F. Supp. 2d 73 · District Court, D. Puerto Rico · Mar 11, 2002

from suit under the doctrine of qualified immunity. … The general rule regarding qualified immunity is that government officials are immune from suit when their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory authority or constitutional rights, which a reasonable person

Robert Stinson v. Raymond Rawson

868 F.3d 516 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Aug 18, 2017

The district court also stated that qualified immunity did not apply because the law as of 1984 and 1985 clearly established that an investigator’s fabrication of evidence violated a criminal defendant’s constitutional rights … Qualified immunity protects government officials from civil damages liability when their conduct does not violate “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.”

Paul W. Cagle Guy R. Epperson Steven A. McCullom Terry Norwood and Jeffrey L. Parker v. Dan Gilley

957 F.2d 1347 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · May 15, 1992

Standard of Review Gilley appeals the denial of his motion for summary judgment on the basis of qualified immunity. A district court’s denial of a claim of qualified immunity is immediately appealable. Mitchell v. … Qualified Immunity Government officials performing discretionary functions are generally shielded from civil damages liability as long as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights

Grigsby & Assocs., Inc. v. City of Shreveport

294 F. Supp. 3d 529 · District Court, W.D. Louisiana · Feb 14, 2018

A defendant who can validly raise a qualified immunity defense will enjoy its protection so long as the allegedly violated constitutional right was not clearly established at the time of the violation. See id. … The qualified immunity inquiry turns on "the objective legal reasonableness of the action, assessed in light of the legal rules that were clearly established at the time it was taken". Id. at 244, 129 S.Ct. at 822.

Patricia Jackson v. Andreas Schultz Richard Cadoura

429 F.3d 586 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Nov 18, 2005

On September 3, 2004, the district court denied the EMTs’ motion to dismiss based on qualified immunity. The court held that Jackson alleged the violation of a clearly established constitutional right. … To defeat qualified immunity, Jackson must show a violation of a constitutional right, and that the constitutional right was clearly established. Brosseau v.

Michael Kopec v. Tyrone Tate, Officer Township of Whitemarsh

361 F.3d 772 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Mar 17, 2004

Qualified immunity is intended to shield government officials performing discretionary functions, including police officers, “from liability from civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established … A defendant has the burden to establish that he is entitled to qualified immunity. See Beers-Capitol v. Whetzel, 256 F.3d 120 , 142 n. 15 (3d Cir.2001). The Supreme Court held in Saucier v.